NOTE: Contrary to what you might be thinking, I just want to assure you that while I may disagree with your own stance Leo, I appreciate you and your own intelligence. So don't interpret any disagreement as any indicator of disapproval of you the person but only to my own 'perception' of your particular responses. It's nice to see you writing here ... and Merry Christmas to you and others if I forget to say it later.
Obvious Leo wrote:Scott Mayers wrote:However, since you also imply no origin to the universe nor end, this requires the idea of quantification of infinities and zeros
Since I've just explicitly stated that these abstractions are not quantifiable you'll have to support this bizarre assertion with an argument.
This is odd. If you declare by definition that
What one unique thing is NOT true for me, call is X == there is no such thing as a quantifiable entity such as zero because it is "abstract" and then
What is 'abstract' == anything that is spoken of that is not true,
you are merely begging that what you don't like personally or can make sense of, you simply
define it out of existence. You may as well say,
Definition:
Anything Scott Mayers says that doesn't appeal to Obvious Leo == not true for Obvious Leo.
You stated above, "This is why Newton's classical mathematics are the wrong tools to model a quantised and dynamic reality." The word 'quantised' means anything that is discretely defined by a number. Yet you deny that any number is real to nature because it is itself an abstraction. I demonstrated that it acts adjectively to define a unit, which itself is equally an abstraction to which you place anything you want in it, including something that you DO agree is real. Thus, you can define the unit, a particular apple that you see. Would you assert that since the apple is 'quantised', as being a "quantity" of ONE (number '1' abstract measure), that it too is unreal? You cannot escape the circularity of your own reasoning here. Say that not even the idea of ONE is true, since it is an abstraction. Then you can NEVER appropriately generalize anything as you'd have to treat each and everything as absolutely unique.
That is, you could never say, "I have two apples", and expect this to be real without accepting that 'two' has a meaning as well. You might have to say "I have this apple and something else that I cannot name." That is, you cannot use the term 'apple' again to even count them because to you there is no meaning to number. If you even say, "I have appleapple" to indicate two, this might work but would you not say that there is anything that you could generalize symbolically that represents the reality of whether you have 'two apples' or not?
Quantity is real. But it is a form(ula) type of word that requires a variable which you place after it to make any sense of it. Yet unless even the object you replace it with is not even allowed the concept of ONE to define it, than the word, "unique" (ONE of a kind), is useless too.
I cannot 'prove' to you anything because you defined OUT by default this capacity to do so with you regardless. You have implicit definitions of things which you will not bend on AND yet you also still insist on using with contradiction. You cannot accept that numbers don't mean anything 'real' but then selectively use the phrase, "everything is quantised", as it means something more true. Try taking out numbers all together in your language just to see how impossible it is to communicate without them. Should this NOT prove to you that numbers are more than mere 'abstractions' or falsities?
I recognize your reasoning is NOT unique. I understand, for instance how the acceptance of zero itself was vehemently fought against time and time again. Christianity, for instance ignored the year '0' as they couldn't believe it true. So to them, that first year was also '1' plus the days past the initiation of that year.
But you also deny time as having two directions. If this was the case, you could never speak of ANY past of your present as even had existed. What would it mean to say 10 years ago if not to simple mean -10 from your present, where your 'present' is always the assigned ZERO. If you started from 1, then does 10 years ago mean 9 of our years ago, without a real zero? In the symbol for "10", '0' is a place holder but means Zero ONES. You also don't KNOW the future other than your present. So I can argue that '0' is all you ever 'know'.
This is at least some 'argument' you ask for but I don't believe it will be qualified for you because of what I've said.
Scott Mayers wrote: Einstein adopted time as a fourth spatialdimensional factor
I put in the important adjective you forgot. In the spacetime paradigm, as modelled by Minkowski in SR, time is explicitly a spatial dimension. This is transparent bullshit since spatial dimensions are bi-directional co-ordinate systems and the arrow of time points resolutely from the past to the future via the nexus of the present. The equations of physics are certainly time invariant but reality is stubbornly NOT.
Actually, if you want to be accurate, the point, itself without lines IS this idea that you are thinking of. That is, a point, rather than a line, is the ZEROTH dimension and what you are interpreting about time since from anything that is not a point is a 'ray' which defines this concept. But we understand this NOT to be 'time' but a static point or place to which anything else but it defines the rest of reality.
"Space-time" is appropriate for the fourth dimension as it both explains the fact that space expands (ie, changes) and gives rise to time from an eternal static state of a point. One unit expansion per 'second' represents both the Volume of additional space of expansion AND this in turn requires change of one set or frame of a three-dimensional world to BECOME another. Time is thus like the mathematical measure of differences of static three-dimensional pictures.
Scott Mayers wrote:(I'm still not sure what precisely you are meaning by "Newtonian"?)
On this occasion I was referring specifically to Newton's classical calculus and its assumption of an infinitely divisible reality. That reality is infinitely divisible has been known to be bollocks since the pre-Socratics and this is why the models of modern physics are only probabilistic ones. A quantised universe cannot be modelled in this way, which is why these models are riddled with paradoxes and counter-intuitive absurdities as well as being mutually exclusive.
I see that you have a problem with infinities. But if zero and infinity are the minimal of what you accept, I'm guessing that you have to at least accept ONEness no matter what. At least, without any standard, you cannot make any sense of any number of things at all. I think that it might help if you prefer to define no number 'real' how would you begin to describe anything? Even 'time' means nothing without contrasting it between at least "two" different experiences. And here, this 'unit' (a oneness) would be "experience". If you follow my concern, can you explain how you could understand anything without inferring that number has a real meaning?